2026:HHC:10172-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.3229 of 2020 Decided on: 2 nd April, 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ Ratni Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Anshul Jairath, Advocate, vice Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of the present petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 12.03.2020 (Annexure P-6), passed by the respondents, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension has been rejected on the ground that her husband, who was working as a Fitter, a Class-III post, and retired from Government service, on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.06.2002, had 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 rendered only 8 years’ and 6 months’ of regular service including work charge service, which is less than 10 years’ of qualifying service for becoming entitled to pension as required under Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972; and further, the weightage of 1 year of service for every five years of daily waged service rendered as per judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, titled, Sunder Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, is applicable only to Class-IV employees. Since the husband of the petitioner was a Class-III employee, the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017 is not applicable in her case and thus rejected her claim for pension. 2. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that her husband was appointed as Fitter in the year 1974, on daily wage basis. His services were to be regularized after completion of 10 years’ of service, but the respondents 3 regularized his services on 30.12.1994 (Annexure P-1) w.e.f. 01.01.1994. After putting 28 years’ services, the husband of the petitioner, retired on 30.06.2002. The husband of the petitioner had rendered more than 10 years’ service with the respondents and thus entitled to pension. The petitioner’s husband has died on 21.06.2012 (Annexure P-3). The rejection of claim of the petitioner for family pension, is totally untenable. 3. The respondents filed reply to the petition and reiterated that since the husband of the petitioner had not completed 10 years’ of service, including daily wage service, the order under challenge was rightly passed and does not require any interference. Further the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh’s case is applicable only to Class-IV employee and since the husband of the petitioner was Class-III employee, he was not entitled to the benefit of the judgment. 4 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 5. It is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as a Beldar on daily wage basis with the respondents w.e.f. 21.07.1978; and thereafter as a Fitter w.e.f. 07.10.1982 and he was conferred the work charge status and his services were regularized vide office order dated 30.12.1994 (Annexure P-1) w.e.f. 01.01.1994. It is also not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner had retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 30.06.2002. It is also not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner had rendered 15 years’ and 164 days’ of service on daily wage basis w.e.f. 21.07.1978 to 31.12.1993 and 8 years’ and 6 months’ of regular service w.e.f. 01.01.1994 to 30.06.2002. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh’s case (supra) had laid down the law that in case a Class-IV 5 employee had completed total eligible service for more than 8 years’ but less than 10 years’ including daily wage services rendered for 10 years, his/her services shall be reckoned as 10 years. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “6. Accordingly, we direct that w.e.f. 01.01.2018, the appellants or other similarly placed Class-IV employees will be entitled to pension if they have been duly regularized and have been completed total eligible service for more than 10 years. Daily wage service of 5 years will be treated equal to one year of regular service for pension. If on that basis, their services are more than 8 years but less than 10 years, their service will be reckoned as ten years.” 7. A careful perusal of the above judgment clearly reveals that even if an employee had rendered 8 years’ of service including daily wage service of 10 years, he/she shall be entitled to pensionary benefits. Since the judgment was being interpreted in a different way, taking the total service as 10 years’ including daily wage services, the matter had again come up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil 6 Appeal No.4792 of 2022, titled, Balo Devi vs. State of H.P. and Ors., wherein, the Hon’ble Court had reiterated the earlier view taken in Sunder Singh’s case and the relevant paras of the judgment read as under:- “On the other hand, according to Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the state, if after giving benefit of one year of regular service for every completed five years as a daily wager, the resultant component were to cross ten years, only in such circumstances, the benefit as extended by this Court in its order could be made available. We find it difficult to accept the submission of Mr. Patwalia. If the submission is accepted, the last line of paragraph 6 would lose any significance or meaning. The intent of this Court was quite clear that: - (a) The services rendered as a regular employee may first be computed. (b) To the service as rendered to above, the component at the rate of one year of regular service for every five years of service as a daily wager, be added. (c) If both the components as detailed in Paras a & b hereinabove, take the length of service to a level of more than eight years but less than ten years, in terms of last sentence of paragraph 6 of the Order, the services shall be reckoned as ten years. In the circumstances, we accept the contention raised by Mr. M.C. Dhingra, and set aside the order 7 dated 13.05.2019 rejecting the claim made by the appellant. Allowing the writ petition preferred by the appellant, it is declared that the husband of the appellant and after the death, the appellant would be entitled to pension as claimed. All the arrears in that behalf shall be made over to the appellant within eight weeks from today.” 8. Thus the rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the ground that her husband had not completed 10 years’ service including daily wage services, is illegal, wrong and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh and Balo Devi’s cases. 9. The other ground for rejection of claim of the petitioner that her husband was working on the post of Fitter, which was a Class-III post and the judgment passed in Sunder Singh’s case (supra) is not applicable also, is not valid, in view of the decision passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.196 of 2022, titled, Roop Lal vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 11.10.2023, wherein, this Court has returned the findings that the daily wage service before regularization/grant of work charge status towards qualifying 8 service for grant of pension, would also be applicable to the employees, who had served on Class-III post. It was held that no distinction can be carved out between the status of Class- III employees and Class-IV employees. The relevant paras of the judgment reads as under:- “19. The claim herein is with respect to counting of service as rendered on daily wage basis before Regularization/grant of work charge status towards qualifying service for grant of pension. For the said adjudication what is relevant is the period rendered towards daily wage by the concerned employee irrespective of the status of the employee, Class-III/Class IV. 20. The claim for pension is a recurring cause of action. The petitioner is an employee who belongs to a lower hierarchy in service. Delay in filing the present petition would dis-entitle the petitioner for grant of interest but he would definitely be entitled for monetary benefits prospectively. Further on account of delay in filing the present petition monetary benefits can be restricted to three years prior to the filing of the petition. In this respect it would be appropriate to refer to (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 648, titled as Union of India and others vs. Tarsem Singh, wherein it has been held that non-grant of pension is a continuing wrong which in spite of delay may be granted as it does not effect the rights of third-parties. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for past service is concerned, it has been held therein that 9 principle relating to recurring/successive wrongs would apply. However, the consequential relief relating to arrears shall normally be restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. 21. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law, we are of the considered view that the purpose of pension, the Constitutional mandate contained in Articles 14, 38, 39 of the Constitution of India and the doctrine of proportionate equality would be required to be read into the Rules as has been held by the Apex Court in Sunder Singh's case supra in order to give weightage of service rendered as daily wager towards regular service for the purpose of pension even to Class-III employees. 22. In view of the above discussion, respondent- State is directed to extend benefit of Daily Wage service to the petitioner, in terms of Sunder Singh's case, as explained in Balo Devi's case, for calculating qualifying service for the purpose of pension, and to extend all benefits of pension to the petitioner within one month from today. However, the petitioner shall be entitled for monetary benefits three years prior to the date of filing of the petition. Benefits accruing beyond three years prior to filling of the petition, if any, shall be only on notional basis. 22-A. With respect to the cut-off date from which actual monetary benefits are to be extended, keeping in view the law laid down by Supreme Court in Sunder Singh’s and Balo Devi’s cases, it is further clarified that the petitioner shall be entitled for actual monetary benefits w.e.f. 1.1.2018 and the monetary benefits, if any, prior to 1.1.2018 shall only be on notional basis, but if the three years period, 10 prior to filing of the petition, is subsequent to 1.1.2018, then the actual benefits shall be granted from such subsequent date.” 10. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in aforementioned LPA was assailed by the State Government before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.1007/2024, titled, The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. versus Roop Lal, and the same was dismissed on 18.03.2025. Thereafter the Review Petition preferred by the respondents-State, which was registered as Review Petition(C) No……../2026 (Diary No. 69722/2025) In Special Leave Petition (C) No.1007/2024, titled, The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. versus Roop Lal, was dismissed on 05.02.2026. Thus, the ratio of law, laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, holding that the dictum passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh’s case (supra) shall also be applicable to the employees, who had retired as Class-III employees, the impugned order passed by the respondents cannot stand and 11 the same is quashed and set aside. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh’s case (supra), has extended the benefits to the employees w.e.f. 01.01.2018 and, therefore, in the present case too, though the husband of the petitioner had retired from service on 30.06.2002, but the petitioner is held entitled to the pensionary benefits w.e.f. 01.01.2018, with all consequential benefits. 12. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.03.2020 passed vide Annexure P-6 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to release the family pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2018 along with arrears within a period of three months from today. In case, the pension and the arrears are not paid to the petitioner within three months from today, the same shall carry interest @6% from due date till its payment. 12 13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 2 nd April, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge